SECOND TIME AROUND: a LOOK at BOTTLE REUSE 69 19Th Century

JANE BUSCH Reuse in the Eighteenth Century

Bulk packaging in ceramic and wooden contain- Second Time Around: A Look at ers was the norm during the 18th century. Glass Bottle Reuse bottles were relatively expensive, and the demand was greater than the supply. Most bottles were imported, a costly process. American glassworks ABSTRACT produced some bottles, but they were hampered by shortages of capital and skilled labor and by Until recently, glass bottles were generally used more than inadequate transportation. In 1800 only eight glass- one time. This study investigates customs of bottle reuse in works are known to have been operating in the the United States during the 18th and 19th centuries, with United States (McKearin and Wilson 1978:7, particular attention to the secondhand bottle business and 28-68, 229). retumable bottle systems. Effects of bottle-manufacturing New and old bottles were more than containers machinery and reasons for the decline of bottle reuse are discussed. The implications of reuse for the analysis of for other goods; they had trade value and property bottles from archaeological sites are considered. value. Brewers, snuff manufacturers, druggists, and other entrepreneurs who needed bottles to market their products gave cash or goods for new Introduction and old bottles (McKearin and Wilson 1978:229, 260, 262, 289). Peter Barbour offered money or snuff for bottles in the Boston Gazette in 1756 Bottles are seductive. Bottle shapes and mark- (Dow 1927:28&8 1). Jonathan Nash advertised ‘ ‘a ings often indicate function and provenience, in- good price” for quart bottles for his New York viting archaeologists to guess the tastes, wealth, brewery in 1769 (Baron 1962:61). In 1779, connections, and habits of the people who used the Harmon & Lewis of Philadelphia offered “the bottles. Nevertheless, archaeologists know that highest price for empty claret bottles” (McKearin empty bottles were often reused for different pur- and Wilson 1978:223). Merchants attempted to poses. Consider an empty soda pop bottle, em- conserve their supply of bottles by offering lower bossed with a Philadelphia address, found at a prices when bottles were returned. In May 1774, a house site in rural Pennsylvania. The occupant of New York brewer offered a dozen bottles of beer the house might have received the bottle filled with for 10 shillings, or 7 shillings if the bottles were homemade catsup from a relative in New York returned (Baron 1962:62). A dealer in Hartford, city. Reuse must be considered whenever bottles Connecticut, in 1797 reduced his price for a dozen are found, and it complicates analysis. bottles of porter from 16 shillings, 2 pence, to The following account traces the history of 12 shillings when the bottles were returned bottle reuse in the United States from the 18th (McKearin and Wilson 1978:230). In another ap- century, when bottles were relatively scarce and proach to the shortage, customers provided their valuable, through the development of complicated own bottles, as seen in this 1766 advertisement collection systems during the 19th century, to the from the Virginia Gazette: “Any person who decline of bottle reuse following World War I. It is sends bottles and corks may have them carefully possible to see the extent, and the limits, of bottle fitted and corked with beer and porter at 6s. or with reuse, and some patterns for specific bottle types ale at 4 s. the dozen” (Baron 1962:62). Sam and different geographic areas. This information Hudson sold cider in the same manner in Philadel- should help to interpret bottles from archaeological phia during the Revolutionary War, when bottles sites. Furthermore, the history of bottle reuse is became even scarcer (McKearin and Wilson part of the history of trash disposal, a basic 1978:230). concern in all archaeology. Seals were applied to wine and liquor bottles to 68 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 21 identify them as private property. Wine merchants operating in the United States (McKearin and used bottles with seals bearing their initials to Wilson 1978:6&70,230; Scoville 1948:7,50). By designate ownership and to insure return of the 1880 there were 169 glasshouses in operation, with bottles for refilling. Among affluent gentlemen, an annual output of bottles approximately seventy who could afford to custom order bottles from times greater than in 1820 (Scoville 1948:7, 64). England, sealed bottles were fashionable for pri- Innovations in bottle manufacturing increased pro- vate use (McKearin and Wilson 1978:204). The ductivity. Full-size piece molds, adopted in Amer- chattel value of bottles is also evident in household ica circa 1810, facilitated unformity and speed inventories, which frequently list empty bottles. (McKearin and Wilson 1978:216, 219, 293, 410). The estate left by Samuel Ruggles in 1716 in- Refinements in the division of labor culminated in cluded a small case with eight bottles among the the shop system, introduced around 1860 and hall furnishings. The 1763 inventory of the estate dominant after 1870. During the same period, of Robert Oliver listed a case with small bottles in workers began to be paid by the piece instead of the setting parlour, and a case with two bottles in by the day, and the limit on the day’s output the dining room. Inventories list bottles in cellars, was abolished (Scoville 1948:22; Anonymous garrets, back rooms, and out of doors, often in 1905a:6). After 1880, productivity was augmented large quantities: one-half gross (72) in the 1737 by the adoption of gas fuel, the tank furnace, and estate of Jacob Williams, one gross (144) in the the annealing lehr (Scoville 1948:28-29, 76-77, 1732 estate of William Tailor. In the 1771 inven- 17677, 337). In 1892, semi-automatic machinery tory of the estate of James Foster, 1L ross (216) was introduced into the production of wide-mouth 25 quart-size bottles were valued at 48 shillings. By glass containers (Scoville 1948: 155). In 1899, comparison, two brass kettles were valued at 40 U.S. glass container production totalled 7,780,000 shillings in the same estate (Cummings 1964). gross, compared to 1,480,000 gross just twen- Archaeological excavations have shown that ty years earlier (Davis 1949:221; Anonymous bottles could be kept for decades before they were 1955:3). discarded. Wine bottles excavated from the John Growth in bottle manufacturing was accompa- Custis house well in Williamsburg were at least 20 nied by a decline in bottle prices (McKearin and years old when they were deposited (Noel Hume Wilson 1978:223-24; Scoville 1948:48, 213, 1974:188). A trash pit at Rosewell mansion in 249). Lower prices combined with changes in Virginia was filled sometime between 1763 and American life to expand the bottle market. Urban- 1772, but most of the bottles (from a total of more ization and a rising standard of living expanded than 350) were manufactured between 1725 and substantially the markets for products that were 1750 (Nod Hume 1962:172). At Wormslow plan- formerly produced at home, such as liquor and tation in Georgia, wine bottles manufactured be- canned food, and for products that were previously tween 1735 and 1760 were found in trash pits with consumed in small quantitites, such as patent artifacts post-dating 1770 (Kelso 1979:95). medicines and carbonated beverages. Glass container use grew along with the increased demand for packaging of all kinds. With the development The Growth of Supply and Demand of roads, canals, steamboats, and railroads, more packaging was needed to protect and preserve After the War of 1812 the supply of bottles more goods during shipment. Sealed glass containers closely approached the demand. Bottle imports helped to assure consumers that the contents were from England resumed at the end of the war. At the pure and sanitary. Brand names on bottles rein- same time, the domestic glass industry was enforced consumer confidence. Packaging was also couraged by protective tariffs, a greater supply of adopted to make it easier for customers to bring capital and skilled labor, and new roads and home and store their purchases. canals. In 1820 there were at least 33 glasshouses Glass bottles were common by the end of the SECOND TIME AROUND: A LOOK AT BOTTLE REUSE 69 19th century. What was the effect on their value? “The most unpleasant duties of the bartender are In 1899, beer, soda, and whiskey bottles were in the morning, when the bottles and decanters, valued at $3.75 per gross, roughly half their cost reduced by the draughts of the day and night earlier in the century, but this was still expensive previous have to be refilled; the tumblers, used just compared to other products (Scoville 1948:2 13). previous to closing, washed, and everything put in The skilled labor required in glassblowing kept the order for the day’s operations (Anonymous 1869; cost high: in the 1870s the wages of skilled preferatory ). glassmen were one-third to two-thirds greater than These simple cycles of bottle reuse were over- the wages of other skilled craftsmen, and two to shadowed by the growth of large businesses de- three times greater than the wages of ordinary voted to the trade in used bottles. As American laborers (Scoville 1948:32-33). Furthermore, the commerce developed, the distance between man- demand for bottles had grown so much that it was ufacturers, merchants, and consumers increased, still greater than the supply. To meet this demand and middlemen moved in to facilitate the transfer of in 1899, a number of houses petitioned the bottle goods between them. In this case, used bottle deal- blowers’ union to operate part of the summer, ers transferred empty bottles from consumers back when glassworks traditionally closed due to the to merchants and manufacturers. Information on the heat (Anonymous 1899a:l). More than a billion origin and early development of the secondhand new bottles were produced that year, but old bottle trade is elusive. First, there had to be enough bottles retained enough value to be saved and used used bottles to make the business profitable. A again. dealer named George Bartholf claimed to have started the first used bottle business in New York City in the late 1840s (Anonymous 1928:109-IO). The Secondhand Bottle Business By 1878, soda bottlers were organizing against secondhand bottle dealers who unethically sold their In the first decades of the 19th century, people bottles (Anonymous 1878:36). The secondhand continued to reuse bottles much as they had during bottle trade in Pittsburgh was reportedly founded in the 18th century. In the 1830s it was still custom- 1883 (Anonymous 1899c:7). The largest bottle ary for consumers to bring empty bottles directly to dealer in Detroit started out in 1885 (Anonymous merchants in return for cash (McKearin and 1957:6). By the 1890s the secondhand bottle busi- Wilson 1978:232, 289). Druggists continued this ness was firmly established and thriving in Amer- custom into the 20th century, charging customers ica’s cities. for new prescription bottles, then refunding the In an 1896 report, New York City’s Department charge if the bottle was returned, or omitting the of Street Cleaning described a flourishing business charge if the bottle was refilled. Customers also in used bottles: brought their own bottles to druggists to be filled; The trade in old bottles, for example, is enormous, several sometimes these were medicine bottles, sometimes large establishments being devoted to it. At one store I was they were not (Anonymous 1903a:487; Hague told that 5,000,ooObottles were kept in stock, that carload 1913:135; Leslie 1840:211; Anonymous 1899b:ll; lots were received from different large cities, and that Anonymous 1902a: 18). Merchants such as drug- expensive exports were made to Europe (Department of gists who used large numbers of bottles kept Street Cleaning 1896:70-71). many as permanent store furnishings, refilling In 1908 the secondhand bottle trade in New them as needed. The “shop furniture” used by York state handled an estimated 2,000,000 gross druggists was even passed on from father to son bottles a year, at a value of $4,500,000 to (Munsey 1970: 174). Similarly, bars and saloons $6,500,000 (Anonymous 1908a:32). Dealers re- served whiskey from bottles but purchased it by ceived bottles from servants and employees who the barrel. It was the bartender’s job to fill bottles recovered them from private residences, restau- from the barrel, as described in an 1869 manual: rants, saloons, and hotels. Hotels were an impor- 70 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 21 tant source, regularly collecting empty bottles even and mucilage bottles were returned to the manu- from the guest rooms and sending them to dealers facturers; cologne and perfume bottles went to the by the wagon load. Many bottles arrived at the cheap scent manufactories on New York’s East secondhand bottle dealer via pushcart men and Side (Anonymous 1903b374). junk shops. Large numbers of bottles were recovered from the dumps (Department of Street Clean- ing 1896:34,7&71; Anonymous 1903b:74; Anon- The Returnable Bottle System ymous 1905b:l; Anonymous 1899d:18). In New York city, “scow-trimmers’’ collected bottles from The returnable bottle system complemented the the waterfront garbage dumps. They set aside used bottle business in the recovery of empty registered bottles belonging to soft drink and beer bottles. Returnable soda water bottles were used in bottlers, and sold the remaining “mixed” bottles New York city as early as the 1840s but did not to bottle dealers for $1.50 a barrel. In 1896, New become common until bottled soda became popu- York’s scow-trimmers collected approximately lar following the invention of the Hutchinson 500 barrels of mixed bottles a week, or 26,000 stopper in 1879 (McKearin and Wilson barrels a year (Department of Street Cleaning 1978:24243; Riley 1958:97-98). Similarly, re- 1896: 117). turnable beer and milk bottles became common Secondhand bottle dealers paid from one-half to after the 1870s. Lager beer was first bottled two cents each for bottles around the turn of the successfully in 1873, and the first known delivery century and sold the bottles for fifty cents less per of milk in glass containers was in 1878 (Anony- gross than new bottles (Anonymous 1903b:74; mous 1909a:4; Munsey 1970:191). Under the re- Anonymous 1905b: 1). Customers for used bottles turnable system, bottles were considered the legal were varied and widespread. In 1899 Jacobson property of the bottler, and customers were obli- Brothers of Pittsburgh sent an eight carload ship- gated to return them to the bottler for refilling. ment of wine and champagne bottles to Puerto Rico Bottles were embossed with the bottler’s name, and Cuba (Anonymous 1899c:7). The market for and frequently the reminder “This Bottle Not To wine bottles was particularly good since few were Be Sold” or “This Bottle To Be Washed And manufactured in the United States. Secondhand Returned” (Wilson and Wilson 1968: 17G77; bottle dealers distributed used European wine and McKearin and Wilson 1978: 179, 242). Returnable champagne bottles to American wineries and to the bottles were practical when distribution was local- fruit juice and gaseous water industries in upstate ized, as was generally the case with soda pop, New York (Anonymous 1903b:74; Anonymous beer, and milk. Their advantage was elimination of I934a: 10; Anonymous 1908b: 13). Distilleries, the cost of the bottle from the price of the product. bucket shops, and saloons provided a ready market Products such as patent medicine were expensive for used whiskey bottles; illegal refilling of enough to absorb the price of the bottle, but a few branded bottles with cheap whiskey was wide- cents added to the price of a bottle of soda would spread (Anonymous 1903b:74; Anonymous hurt sales. In the early 1900s a bottle of soda sold 1908c:17). The South Carolina Dispensary, a le- for 5~;selling the bottle with the contents would gitimate customer, used as many secondhand have added an additional (Scoville 1948:213). whiskey bottles as possible for economy (Anony- The returnable bottle system seemed sensible for mous 1905c:88). Empty liquor bottles were also these inexpensive, rapidly-consumed products, but traditionally used in the sale of linseed oil, turpen- it established “the bottle question” as the number tine, and similar products (Anonymous 1938a:7). one bottler headache. Embossed patent medicine bottles were purchased The National Bottlers’ Gazette called the bottle by the original medicine manufacturers or by question “the monstrous evil which every year imitators, and were used for bluing and ammonia saps the life from this otherwise prosperous trade (Anonymous 1903b:74; Blanc 1913:39). Large ink (Anonymous 1882:3). In 1883 bottle loss was SECOND TIME AROUND. A LOOK AT BOTTLE REUSE 71 estimated at roughly 65 percent (Anonymous bottles that had registered trademarks blown in the 1883:25). An 1896 report on the bottling business glass, and subsequent state laws prohibited the sale in the United States reported a total capital invest- of these bottles (Anonymous 1878:36; Peters ment of $41,573,469 and an annual loss in bottles 1902:24). By 1906, twenty-one states had laws of more than $3,500,000 (Department of Street imposing fines for dealing in registered bottles Cleaning 1896:119). To fight bottle loss, bottlers (Anonymous 1906a:30). The laws reduced, but did banded together in trade associations. The Penn- not eliminate the sale and reuse of registered sylvania Bottlers’ Association, the Maryland Bot- bottles, and bottle exchanges hired detectives to tlers’ Association, the Missouri Bottlers’ Associa- track down violators (Anonymous 1905d:66; Carr tion and their counterparts throughout the United 1926: 122). Under the protective laws, bottlers States secured the passage of state laws protecting were able to seize their property in raids and the property rights of registered trademark bottles. prosecute the violators. In 1921, within four They organized the recovery of bottles from other months, the Massachusetts Bottlers’ Exchange bottlers, private households, and dumps, setting up took more than 60,000 bottles in raids and prose- central bottle exchanges and clearing houses where cuted 30 bottlers for illegally using registered bottles were sorted and retumed to their rightful bottles (Anonymous 1921:34). Though dramatic, owners. Bottle exchanges received the most bottles raids actually brought back fewer bottles than from member bottlers who acquired other mem- member exchanges and dump collections. bers’ bottles mixed with their own empties. With Large numbers of beer and soda bottles were many small soda and beer bottlers operating in one lost to housekeepers who kept them for their own area, empties were inevitably scrambled. The ex- use, particularly in the fall (Anonymous 190056). change was foremost a means of getting these “That period of the year when the good housewife bottles back to their proper owners. begins to bottle her ketchup and make her Bottle exchanges also directed the recovery of preserves is at hand, and it is also the season when bottles lost to careless and illegal users. In an I855 the Pennsylvania Bottlers’ Protective Association advertisement in the Savannah Daily News, one makes its greatest efforts to prevent the bottles of bottler wamed: “I hereby caution all persons its members from being utilized for purposes that particularly those engaged in bottling against either necessitate hiding them in cellars and closets until buying, selling, using or in any way depriving me gentle spring comes around again” (Anonymous of my bottles bearing my name John Ryan” 1902b:84). The shapes of beer and soda bottles (Schmeiser 1968:s). Seventy years later the Na- made them particularly popular for home preserv- tional Bottlers’ Gazette was still deploring the ing. In 1901 the Pennsylvania Bottlers’ Associa- activities of the “bottle louse” who used compet- tion found in Philadelphia homes over one million itors’ bottles (Can 1926: 122). The bottle louse had bottles filled with ketchup, sauces, com beer, root plenty of opportunity to appropriate bottles left for beer, fruit wines, and other ‘ ‘exhilirating drinks” collection or simply abandoned by customers. (Anonymous 1902b:84). Bottlers seldom prose- Dishonest dairymen ensured a supply of milk cuted housewives, but they did confiscate the bottles by collecting their competitors’ empties bottles (Anonymous 1902b:84; Anonymous from the doorsteps when they made their moming 3905d:66). In the 20th century, bottle loss to deliveries (Hagerman 1912:68). Saloons sold a home preserving declined, except during Prohibi- large proportion of the bottled soda in the 19th tion. In 1922 the National Bottlers’ Gazette century, and the bottling trade papers bitterly attributed a shortage of soft drink bottles almost criticized the “always careless and too often un- entirely to their use for home brew (Anonymous scrupulous’’ saloon keeper who sold soda and beer 1922: 18). bottles to used bottle dealers, who sold them in Bottles taken by housekeepers and competing turn to the bottle louse (Anonymous 1878:36). The bottlers were lost to their legitimate owners, but Trade-Mark Act of 1876 prohibited the refilling of they were still in use. Many bottles, however, 72 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 21 were simply discarded. A bottle detective observed Reuse and Disposal ca. 1900 in 1905: In 1900 a bottle manufacturer wrote:

Beer bottles are treated very much the same as boxes in In no other country in the world is the consumption of glass which fried oysters are taken home. As soon as the box is bottles so great as in the United States. The reason for this done with it is thrown to one side to find the ash heap and is to be found in the greater material prosperity of the people finally the dump. The same is true with beer bottles. Many of this country as compared with those of the old world. a man will take home a bottle or two of beer with his box of Here it is not the custom to preserve a bottle after it has once oysters and when the bottle is emptied it is thrown out with served the purpose for which it was originally intended the oyster box (Anonymous 1905d:66). (Tatum 1900:8). Bottlers and bottle dealers recovered many bottles Whereas saloon keepers legally or illegally re- only after they were discarded, and recovery was turned bottles for refilling, consumers were more far from complete. Used bottle dealers operated likely to throw bottles away. Archaeologists exca- primarily in cities, even as far west as San vating late 19th century dumps in Atlanta found Francisco, but the cost of collecting and shipping only fragments of beer bottles at a tavern dump but bottles from sparsely populated areas was gener- found whole bottles at domestic dumps (Dickens ally too high to make the business profitable. and Bowen 198054). Bottle exchanges followed Similarly, long distance “shipping brewers” the example set by used bottle dealers in recover- found it too expensive to retrieve bottles used to ing bottles from city dumps. In the 1890s a ship beer across the Rocky Mountains (Cochran contractor for the New York Bottlers’ and Manu- 1948:177; Kurtenacker 191458). In western min- facturers Association paid the scow-trimmers 50~ing towns, empty beer and liquor bottles were so a barrel to collect soda bottles, which he washed, abundant that in some towns they were used to sorted, and delivered to the exchange (Department build houses and sidewalks (Starry 1968:2&23; of Street Cleaning 1896:119-20; Anonymous Baron 1962:254). In others they were just dumped. 1899:18). In 1895 the New York Association Even within the cities, bottles did not always make recovered 1,132,018 beer, soda, and siphon bot- it to the city dumps, where they might be recov- tles from New York city and Brooklyn dumps. ered, but were frequently broken or deposited in Milk bottlers were recovering 100,000 bottles a backyard dumps and vacant lots. A bottle detective year from the New York dumps during the same described this scene in 1906: “In the various period (Department of Street Cleaning empty lots, especially those adjoining flat houses, 1896:119-20). In 1905, 453,475 milk bottles and many bottles, the greater number of them broken, 1,915,354 beer and soda bottles were recovered can be found. It is so much easier to throw bottles from the New York dumps (Anonymous 1906b:36; out of the window.” He noted that few bottles Anonymous 1906c:34). The New York Associa- bearing the dates 1903 and 1904 were still in use tion found that dump bottles accounted for a (Brand 190628). consistently higher percentage of small soda bot- Consumers discarded empty bottles because tles than of other bottles. In 1909 dump bottles they accumulated more than they needed. House- accounted for 7% of the siphon bottles recovered, wives still used large quantities of glass containers 20% of the quart-size bottles, 27% of the weiss for storage, home brewing, and preserving, but the beer bottles, 41% of the lager beer bottles, and number of bottles coming into the home was 62% of the soda bottles recovered. Customers increasing. In 1910, twenty glass containers were were understandably more careless with the produced for every person in the United States smaller, cheaper bottles (Anonymous 1909b: (Anonymous 1910a:l). Some of these glass con- 46-48). By the early 1900s, all of the state tainers contained prepared foods that the house- associations were recovering bottles from the wife formerly made herself, so the need for glass dumps. containers in the home was decreasing while the SECOND TIME AROUND: A LOOK AT BOTTLE REUSE 73 supply was increasing. A thrifty homemaker ob- to $1.50 by manual production. In 1916, factories served in 1916: “There is a vast array of bottles using glassblowers paid 5 1.49% of the sales value and jars accumulated in the course of a few months of their annual product in wages. Owens machine in the average home, in which pickles, cream licensees paid 31.38% of their product sales value cheese, dried beef, and various other kinds of in wages and machine royalties (Scoville 1948:65, edibles are sold, and there is a vast array of uses to 155-56, 15%62, 205, 211). which they can be put instead of being thrown By 1917, when the Owens Bottle Machine away.” (Farmer 1916:89-90). That same year, Company opened the first completely mechanized Scientific American noted that a very large portion glass factory, Owens machines accounted for 50% of the bottles manufactured annually in the United of the glass containers produced in the United States were thrown away after one use (Anony- States (Meigh 1960:25; Scoville 1948: 184). There mous 19 16a:56). Even where bottles were redeem- were also more than 300 semi-automatic bottle able for cash, many people did not bother to machines in use. Comparatively simple and inex- redeem them. As the New York City Department pensive, semi-automatic machines were more of Street Cleaning reported: practical for small orders and helped to fill the gap in machine supply created by the Owens Bottle Old bottles are handled in every junk-shop, besides forming the sole stock in trade of a considerable number of dealers, Machine Company’s limited licensing policy. Gob large and small. But although they can be used over and feeding devices that could be attached to semi- over again, and are always exchangeable for cash, bottles automatic machines to make them fully automatic are to be found in very load of garbage that reaches the were available for jars in 1915 and for bottles dump (Department of Street Cleaning 1896: 117). in 1918 (Scoville 1948:162, 180-89; Meigh 1960:3&38). In the 1922-23 glassblowing season, Impact of the Bottle Machine automatic machines, either Owens or gob-feeding, produced 80% of the glass containers made in the In 1903, when Michael Owens began marketing United States. In 1924-25, automatic machines his automatic bottle manufacturing machine, the accounted for 90% of glass container production New York POSEestimated that half of the bottles (Davis 1949:2 13). used in a year were lost and half were used again When machine manufacturing began, the grow- (Anonymous 1903b:74). Machine manufacturing ing bottle market readily absorbed the additional did not at first affect this balance, although the output. Machine manufacturing actually increased effects on cost and productivity were immediate. the demand for bottles by producing bottles that The first Owens machines produced 35.4 gross pint were notably more uniform in weight and capacity beer bottles in an hour day, while a shop of than bottles hand blown into molds. Uniform size glassblowers and assistants produced 15 to 20 assured both retailers and consumers that they gross in the same time. Furthermore, the Owens were not being cheated in the sale of bottled machine could operate around the clock to produce products and encouraged the use of glass contain- at least 100 gross pint beer bottles in 24 hours. ers in place of bulk containers. While the growing Productivity increased in subsequent models of the demand was thus helping to prevent over- Owens machine; a 1917 model produced about five production, the Owens Company was limiting the times as many bottles per day as a 1905 model. number of its licensees toward the same end Greater productivity and the elimination of skilled (Scoville 1948:212, 214). In 1909 the president of bottle blowers combined to reduce the cost of the bottle blowers union reported optimistically: production. Machine operators were paid $.20 an “Even with all the machines in operation last hour in 1906, compared to glass blower wages of season, and every bottle maker in the country $7.00 a day. The total labor cost for one gross of employed, the stocks of ware now on hand are pint beers produced by an Owens machine between lighter than at any former time” (Anonymous 1903 and 1907 was approximately $. 10, compared 1909c: 1 ). Instead of lowering prices, machine 74 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 21 users tumed lower production costs into extra 1936a:3; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1975: profits, even charging 50$ to $1 .OO more per gross 210-1 1). By comparison, pint beer bottles in 1911 because of the superior quality of their product cost $2.75 per gross (Scoville 1948:213). Machine (Scoville 1948:212; Anonymous 1910b: 1; Anony- manufacture accelerated the steady increase in mous 1909d:10). bottle supply and decrease in bottle value that In 1909 this balance began to falter. The bottle began during the 19th century, bringing the indus- blowers took wage cuts of 20% in 1909 and try to the critical point where the supply of bottles another 20% in 1912, hoping to preserve the surpassed the demand. market for handblown bottles by reducing the price. Owens licensees retaliated by reducing their bottle prices (Scoville 1948:212-13). In 1911 the Decline of the Secondhand Bottle Business Owens Bottle Machine Company reported average price reductions for the company and its licensees Bottle manufacturers had always viewed used of 10 to 20% over 1908 (Anonymous 1911a:l). bottle dealers as a nuisance, but the competition One licensee, the American Bottle Company, re- took on new meaning with the amval of machine duced its pint beer bottles from $3.75 to $2.60 per manufacturing and overproduction. When the bot- gross before Word War I ended the price war. tle blowers felt threatened by machinery, they During the war years, 1914 to 1918, prices rose channeled much of their anger toward their old throughout the glass industry, though less rapidly enemies the bottle dealers. In 1905 the Glass than prices in general (Scoville 1948:213-14). Bottle Blowers Organization of the United States Meanwhile, machines with ever-increasing pro- and Canada resolved to send a circular to all labor ductive capacity were steadily replacing the bottle organizations in the country, asking them to en- blowers. Overproduction was inevitable. In 191 1, courage their families and friends to break all the National Glass Budget reported that there bottles before throwing them away (Anonymous would be a delay in the resumption of bottle 1905b: I).In the end, neither the bottle blowers nor blowing following the summer break: “The longer the bottle dealers could compete with the bottle a general resumption is delayed, the better it will machines. While machine manufacturing was re- be for the market as the year advances, since there ducing the cost of producing new bottles, rising is a producing capacity in excess of consumptive labor costs were increasing the cost of recovering requirements’ ’ (Anonymous 19 1 1b: 1). In 1919, old bottles. In Municipal Refuse Disposal, the glass container production reached 22,295,000 American Public Works Association cited the high gross, more than three times the number of glass cost of labor for collecting and sorting materials as containers produced in 1899 (David 1949:221). The the primary cause of the decline of all forms of Owens Company discontinued a machine that waste salvage (American Public Works Associa- produced three hundred four-ounce prescription tion 1961:308-9). bottles per minute because its output was too great While the price advantage of used bottles was for the market (Anonymous 1942: 10). Neverthe- slipping, legislation to regulate the liquor industry less, in 1934 the automatic bottle machines in use crippled the secondhand bottle trade. Liquor bot- were capable of producing 100,000 bottles a day, tles and imported wine bottles were the staples or 700,000 a week, and Modern Packaging re- of the secondhand bottle business. In 1914, ported: “You seldom have call for a full week’s 2,689,000 gross liquor bottles and flasks were production on any single bottle, except in such manufactured in the United States. The Eighteenth exceptional instances as that caused by the legal- Amendment was ratified on 29 January 1919, and ization of beer and liquor” (Anonymous went into effect the following year. By 1919 liquor 1934b:35). In 1936, standard twelve-ounce retum- bottle production had already dropped to 993,000 able beer bottles cost $2.80 per gross, the equiva- gross (Bamett 1926239). With liquor bottles prac- lent of $1.73 in 1911 dollars (Anonymous tically eliminated, many bottle dealers undoubt- SECOND TIME AROUND. A LOOK AT BOTTLE REUSE 75 edly went out of business, like the Kansas junk Glass Container Manufacturers Institute 196054). dealer who had to quit the bottle business in 1916 By 1938 the law was pronounced successful in after Prohibition took effect in his state (Anony- largely curtailing bootlegging (Anonymous 1938b: mous 1916b:73). On the other hand, there was a 705). As an aside, Business Week noted: “So far great demand for bottles suitable for bootleg no one has worried about the problem of final liquor. Before 1920, the consumption of bottled destruction. The old liquor bottle may become as liquor increased where local prohibition laws bothersome an outcast as the dulled razor blade” forced the closing of saloons (Anonymous (Anonymous 1935a: 23). 1910c:3). When Atlantic City began to enforce its After 1935 the secondhand bottle business sur- Sunday Closing Law in 1913, the beaches became vived on a greatly reduced scale. In 1938 New York littered with bottles: “In a search made from city’s used bottle dealers did a million dollar annual Young’s Ocean Pier to the Million Dollar Pier by business, a fraction of their sales volume at the one of the employees, 232 flasks of the pint and beginning of the century. They dealt primarily in half-pint variety were discovered. This condition wine bottles, with a large share of food and beer prevails only on Monday, following ‘dry’ Sun- bottles (Anonymous 1938c: 16). Used bottle dealers days” (Anonymous 1913:38). During Prohibition, tried to collect and sell the nonreturnable beer bot- bottle dealers who were able to maintain supplies tles introduced in 1935. These special lightweight of suitable bottles and were willing to deal with beer bottles were strong enough for one filling but bootleggers must have flourished. not necessarily for two; some broke when returned On 5 December 1933, the Eighteenth Amend- to the fillers (Anonymous 1940a: 12; Anonymous ment was repealed. Liquor boards prohibited the 1940b: 15). Lightweighting was applied to other sale of bulk liquor in casks in the effort to establish glass containers, and, combined with the use of tight control and prevent the resurgence of any- faster filling machinery, may have contributed to thing resembling the old time saloon (Anonymous the decline of the used bottle business. 1933:32). Liquor was sold only in bottles, and Public health was another contributor. People well-established bootleggers took up the old prac- had long been concerned about using bottles re- tice of refilling the branded bottles of legitimate covered from dumps. In the early 1900s, some dealers (Anonymous 1935a:23; Anonymous 1935b: customers required secondhand bottle dealers to 12). In 1934, a Federal Alcohol Control adminis- deliver their bottles packed in boxes as if they were trator estimated that one gallon of illegal liquor new bottles from the glass factories (Anonymous was sold for every legal gallon (Anonymous 1903b:74). In 1899, the Pennsylvania legislature 1934c: 13). On 1 January 1935, the federal govern- passed a law prohibiting the collection of bottles ment enacted legislation prohibiting the resale, from refuse and the sale of any goods in previously purchase, or use of used liquor bottles, even by the used bottles (except for milk, soft drink, beer, and original filler. All liquor bottles were embossed prescription bottles). The stated purpose of the bill “Federal Law Forbids Sale or Re-Use of This was to protect the public health, but the state’s Bottle.” Used bottles were supposed to be de- important glass manufacturing industry was re- stroyed. Before mid-January , one million empty ported to be behind the bill (Anonymous 1899c:7; liquor bottles were seized in a raid on three New Anonymous 1905e:54). Although this particular York secondhand bottle dealers (Anonymous law was not enforced, it shows an awareness of 1935a:23; Anonymous 1935d:92). By August the possible health hazards from bottle reuse. In the price of bootlegged bottles had reportedly in- 193Os, state pharmacy boards began issuing regu- creased 500%. Sales of legal liquor and new liquor lations requiring new bottles for all liquid prescrip- bottles increased: 5,663,000 gross liquor and wine tions (Husa 1941:653). bottles were shipped for domestic consumption in After World War 11, new methods of waste 1935, 7,447,000 gross were shipped in 1936 collection and disposal further discouraged the (Anonymous 1935d:483; Anonymous 1936b:3; recovery of old bottles (Darnay and Franklin 76 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 21 1972:14, 22, 98). In 1961, Municipal Refuse its, and only 13.8 bottles per barrel with deposits Disposal cited only one company that salvaged (Nicholson 19 1639). bottles, and their efforts were limited to returnable Deposits were widespread in the soft drink in- deposit bottles (American Public Works Associa- dustry by the 1920s. Under the 1934 National Re- tion 1961:308-9). Apart from some trade in covery Act Code of Fair Competition for the Bottled returnables, the used bottle market no longer Carbonated Beverage Industry, deposits became existed. In the late 1960s, when consumers con- mandatory (Carr 1926: 122; Anonymous cerned about solid waste began voluntarily bring- 1934d:39). The Code required a deposit no less than ing their used bottles to recycling centers, the one-third of the replacement value of bottles and bottles were crushed and used for cullet. cases (Anonymous 1934e:ll). In practice, 2$ per bottle became normal. Following repeal, the brewing industry adopted deposits as standard practice, Deposits on Returnable Bottles although they posed a problem for long-distance shipping brewers (Anonymous 1934f:3). Dairies During the period when the used bottle business were also using deposits in the 1930s, particularly was declining, the returnable bottle system was for milk purchased at retail stores (Anonymous actually growing stronger through the use of de- 1938d:3,7; Anonymous 1946:65). Combined with posits. As early as 1877, the trade journal Carbon- more organized systems of pick-up and delivery, ated Drinks proposed a deposit system as the deposits reduced bottle loss far more effectively solution to the bottle loss problem (Anonymous than bottle exchanges and dump collections, which 1877:3). No one questioned the wisdom of depos- were generally discontinued. When a Virginia bot- its. Without them, only a sense of honesty and tler recovered bottles from the city dumps in 1949, responsibility motivated customers to retum bot- the National Bottlers Gazette reported it as a curious tles, and this had proven insufficient. Customers incident (Anonymous 1949:39). Bottle loss was 3 actually had more incentive to sell bottles to or 4% in 1947, not insignificant, but still a fraction dealers than return them to bottlers. A deposit of the loss typical at the turn of the century (Comp- provided incentive for retum and defrayed the cost troller General of the U.S. 1980:40). of the bottle when it was not returned. But bottlers delayed adopting a deposit system for fear that they would lose business, particularly if neighbor- Decline of Returnable Bottles ing bottlers continued to “give bottles away” (Anonymous 1931 : 1 18). When significant num- Returnable bottles for soda pop, beer, and milk bers of bottlers began to charge deposits they were at their strongest during the 1930s and 1940s. usually adopted the system at the state or regional The value of a 2$ deposit encouraged bottle returns level to minimize unfair competition. In 1903 during the Depression; materials shortages en- Milwaukee brewers began charging deposits on all forced returns during World War 11. In 1947, beer bottles leaving the city (Anonymous 1903c:70). bottles travelled an average of 32 round trips from The Bottlers Association of (Washington) D.C. brewer to market, and soda pop bottles travelled an began placing a 2$ deposit on every bottle in average of 24 round trips (Comptroller General of 1906 (Anonymous 1906d:3 1). Nebraska bottlers the U.S. 1980:40; Organization for Economic adopted a deposit system in 1909, followed by Cooperation and Development 1978:39). Yet it Kansas bottlers in 191 1, and so forth (Anonymous was during this period that nonretumable contain- 191 lc:51). The trade journal American Bottler ers began to threaten the use of returnable bottles. chronicled the spread of deposits and their bene- Paper milk bottles were used as early as 1902, but fits. One example cited was a Massachusetts brew- it was the square paper carton, introduced in 1934, ery which used an average of 16.6 bottles to bottle that became a serious competitor to glass (Anon- a barrel of beer before they began charging depos- ymous 1902c:68; Anonymous 1934850; Anony- SECOND TIME AROUND: A LOOK AT BOTTLE REUSE 77 mous 1935e;125; Anonymous 1936c: 16). Non- dated, archaeologists should look for wear such as retumable bottles and cans for beer were scratches and abrasions to indictate how long a introduced in 1935 (Beer Can Collectors of Amer- bottle was used, as well as the way it was used. ica 1976:3; Anonymous 1935f3). After World Wear pattems on bottles could be analyzed as they War 11, nonretumables progressed rapidly and are on ceramics. Bottles can help to determine trade steadily. By 1952, nonretumable containers ac- networks when conclusions are based on a sample counted for 30% of packaged beer and 37% of rather than on isolated instances, particularly when packaged milk (Anonymous 1959:79; Anonymous evidence from bottles is combined with evidence 1953:14). In the soft drink market, the progress of from other artifacts and from historical research. nonretumables was slower; nonreturnable bottles For example, historical research shows that in the were first used for soft drinks in 1948, and soft early 20th century the South Carolina Dispensary drink cans were not used successfully until 1953 used secondhand liquor bottles, an important clue (Anonymous 1948: 107; Anonymous 1961 :25). In to archaeologists at early 20th century South Caro- 1978, nonretumable containers accounted for 62% lina sites. When commercial and industrial sites are of packaged soft drinks and 89% of packaged beer excavated, archaeologists should note the variety of (Comptroller General of the U.S. 1980:31). In packages found there; excavation of a dairy site 1976, nonretumables already held 98% of the might yield bottles from other dairies in the area, or packaged milk market (Serchuk I978:37). from other areas. Although the shape or label of a bottle is not an automatic indicator of its contents, in some cases traces remain of the last product it Conclusions held, traces that can be analyzed. Again, historical research provides clues: European wine bottles When reuse is taken into account, as it must be, were used to bottle fruit juices and gaseous waters site interpretation based on bottles is more diffi- in upstate New York, liquor bottles were custom- cult. At the least there is the possibility of time lag arily reused for paint products, and so forth. Site- between the dates of manufacture and disposal of specific historical research should provide more bottles, reducing their usefulness in dating sites. clues. Trade networks based on names and places marked There are some rough guidelines as to where on bottles are subject to error because bottles were bottles were more likely to be reused than dis- often reused by different people in different loca- carded. Bottle dealers were most active within and tions. Furthermore, bottles can no longer be seen between cities. In contrast, large numbers of beer as an easy guide to consumer behavior. The and liquor bottles shipped full to frontier mining relationship of what people consume to what they towns were discarded when empty. Commercial discard to what the archaeologist ultimately finds users seem to have been more inclined than con- is complex. When efficient bottle collection sys- sumers to return bottles, at least at urban sites. One tems are present, the evidence that a person drank might hypothesize that at rural domestic sites, a lot of soda pop, for example, would be removed where packaged products were less common than or reduced. Of course an archaeologist would not in cities, bottles had greater value for reuse in the base conclusions only on the absence of physical home. Analysis of dump sites has shown that small evidence. However the presence of a bottle, such bottles were discarded more readily than large as a wine bottle, does not necessarily indicate that bottles. wine was consumed for the bottle might have If bottles seem less useful in determining dates, contained something else. trade networks, and consumption pattems, con- Despite these difficulties, archaeologists can still sider that the decision whether to reuse or discard use bottles in site analysis. To begin with, aware- a bottle is itself an aspect of consumer behavior. If ness that reuse is a possibility will help to avoid an archaeologist observes that the occupants of a simplistic interpretation. When a bottle must be site were discarding whole, usable bottles, that 78 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 21 may reveal something about those occupants. Per- 1902a Unlawful Filling of Bottles. American Carbonator haps they were too wealthy, or too careless, to care and Bottler 22(253): 18. 1902b Bottles Lost by Thousands. American Carbonator and about redeeming bottles for cash. It could be a sign American Bottler 22(261):84. that scavengers and bottle exchanges were absent 1902c Paper Bottles for the Bottling Trade. American in that particular area. Conversely, absence of Carbonator and American Bottler 22(261):68. usable bottles in a trash deposit might be linked to 1903a A Grave Source of Danger. Bulletin of Pharmacy immigrant status; there is historical evidence that l7( 12~487. European immigrants were more accustomed than 1903b A Bottle Establishment. American Carbonator and American Bottler 23(266):74. Americans to reusing bottles (Department of Street 1903c Pay for Bottles. American Carbonator and American Cleaning 1896:119; Tatum 1900:8). Multiple use Bottler 23(263):70. reduces the certainty of bottle interpretation, but it I905a A Government Bottle Report. National Glass Budget adds dimension. With more careful and sophisti- 21( 18):6. cated analysis, the result can be a richer, more 190% Out-Gazams the Gazabos. Nafional Class Budget 21( 12):I. complete knowledge of an artifact and the society 1905c To Buy Bottles. American Carbonator and American where it was used. Bottler 25(290):88. 1905d The Washington Bottle Exchange. American Carbon- utor und American Bottler 25(288):66. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1905e Pennsylvania Law Against Refilling Bottles. Ameri- can Curbonator and American Bottler 25(295):54. I would like to thank LuAnn DeCunzo, Judith 1906a The Bottle Laws of the States. American Bottler McGaw, George Miller, and Robert Schuyler for 26(6):30-3 I. their comments on earlier versions of this paper. 1906b Milk Bottlers’ Federation. American Bottler 26(3) Thanks also to Joseph Gallagher, Olive Jones, :36. Kevin Lunn, and Karl Roenke for sending informa- 1906c Bottlers’ and Manufacturers’ Association. American tion on bottle reuse. Bottler 26( 1):32-35. 1906d Washington’s New Deposit System. American Borrler 26( I I):3l. 1908a Property Rights in Plain Bottles. American Botrler REFERENCES 28(6):32-33. AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION,COMMI‘ITEE 1908b Second-Hand Bottles. Bar and Buffet 6(25): 13. ON REFUSEDISPOSAL 1908c Whisky Bottles Too Often Refilled. Bar and Buffet 1961 Municipal Refuse Disposal. Public Administration 5(20):17. Service, Chicago. 1909a The Export Beer Bottle. National Glass Budget ANONYMOUS 25(7):4. 1909b Association Affairs. American Bottler 29( 1 1):4&48. 1869 Steward and Barkeepers’ Manual. Jesse Handy & Company, New York. 1909c The March of Progress. National Glass Budget 25(4):1-2. 1877 The Bottle Question. Curbonated Drinks: An Illus- 1909d Thatcher Milk Bottle Catalogue. National Class Bud- trated Quarterly Gazette 1 (1 ):2-3. 1878 Protect Your Bottles. Carbonated Drinks: An Illus- get 25(12):10. 1910a Bottles and Their Making. National Glass Budget trated Quarterly Gazette 1 (4):36. 1882 A New Proposition to Bottlers. National Bottlers’ 25(36):1. Gazetfe 1(1):34. 1910b Bottle Machine Statistics. Nationul Glass Budget 1883 Recovering Lost Bottles. Carbonated Drinks: An 25(50):I. Illustrated Quarterly Gazette 6(3):24-25. 1910~A Very Short Bottle “Crop.” National Glass Budget 1899a The Glass Market. National Glass Budget 15(3):1-2. 26( 10):3. 1899b Familiar Bottles. Meyer Brothers Druggist 19 Ila The Owens Bottle Machine. National Glass Budget 27(29):1. 20( 1): 11. 1899c Pittsburg’s Junk Bottle Industry. National G1a.s~Bud- 191 Ib The Glass Bottle Situation. National Glass Budget get l5(ll):7. 27( 15):1-3. 1899d The Trade in Old Bottles. Liquor Trades’ Review 191 IC Kansas Bottlers Enforce the Deposit System. Ameri- 7(26):18. c’un Bottler 31(5):51-52. 1900 Recovery of Bottles in Aubum, N.Y. American 1913 Bottles Strew the Beach. American Bottler 33(8):38. Carbonator and American Bottler 20(235):56. 1916a Glass Bottles. Amerium Bottler 36( 12):55-56. SECOND TIME AROUND: A LOOK AT BOnLE REUSE 79 1916b Bottle Business Slumps in Westem Kansas. American I948 One-way for Soda. Modern Packaging 22(3): 106-8. Bottler 36(9):73. 1949 Bottler Combs City Dumps for Empties. Nafional 1921 Exchange Saves Bottles. American Bottler 41(3):31. Bottlers’ Gazette 67(804):39. I922 Curbing Bottle Losses. National Bottlers’ Gazette 1953 Milk Packaging Trend in Glass-Paper Containers. 41(489):118. National Glass Budget 69(14):3. 1928 Forty Years Ago. Nutional Bottlers’ Gazette 1955 @I Provides Pertinent Glass Container Facts. Na- 47(557): 109-1 12. tional Glass Budget 71(27):3 I93 I Forty Years Ago. National Bottlers’ Gazette I957 Max Jacob Prominent Cullet Dealer for Sixty Years. 50(590):1 17- I 9. National Glass Budget 73( 12):6. 1933 John Barleycorn Dresses Up. Modern Packaging 1959 Bottles and Cans Make Vast Strides. Modern Brewery 7(4):2943. Age 59(17):79. 1934a Glass Container Officials Report on Its Activities. 1961 Marketing-Packaging Trends. National Bottlers’ Ga- Narional Glass Budget 50(22):3. zette 80(956):25-26. 1934b The Materials of Packaging, No. 2: Glass Containers. BARNETT,GEORGE F. Modern Packaging 8(2):33-39. 1926 Chapters on Machinery and Labor. Harvard Univer- 1934c Change Our Control Methods and Curb the Bootleg- sity Press, Cambridge; reprint ed. 1969, Southem ger. National Glass Budger SO( I ): 13. Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 1934d Code Approved! National Bottlers’ Gazette BARON,STANLEY 53(628):3942. 1962 Brewmed in America: A History of Beer and Ale in the 1934e Rules Governing Deposits on Soft Drink Bottles. United States. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. National Glass Budget 50( 19):1 1. BLANC, JOEL 1934f Buainess Holding Despite Adverse Conditions. Na- 1913 When Truth Telling Does Not Advertise. The Ameri- tional Glass Budget 50(6):3. can Bottler 33(9):3940. 1934g New Paper Milk Bottle. Scientific American 151( 1):SO. BRAND, JOSEPH 1935a Outlaw Empties. Business Week, January 12:23. 1906 Where Do the Bottles Go?American Bottler 26(1):28. 1935b Non-Refillable Bottles. Business Week, March 1612. CARR, FRANKP. 1935c Fight to Stop Illegal Liquor Business Continues on 1926 How to Operate a Bottle Exchange. National Bottlers’ Front of Package Control. Glass Packer 14(2):92-93. Gazette 44(528):122. 1935d Bulk Liquor Means Bootlegging. Glass Packer COCHRAN,THOMAS C. I4(8):483-84. 1948 The Pabst Brewing Company. New York University 1935e Paper Containers. Food Industries 7(3): 125-26. Press, New York. 1935f New No-Deposit Beer Bottle Makes Its Bow to the COMITROLLER GENERALOF THE UNITED STATES. Trade. National Glass Budget SI( 16):3. 1980 States’ Experience with Beverage Container Deposit 1936a The “Steinie” Joins “Stubby” in Defense Against Laws Shows Positive Benefits, PAD-8 1-08. General Cans. National Glass Budget 52( 19):3. Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 1936b Glass Bottle Sales Active; But Beer Bottle Menaced. National Glass Budget 5 I (40):3. CUMMINGS, ABBOITLOWELL (EDITOR) 1936c Container Conflict. Business Week. March 21: 16. 1964 Rural Household Inventories. Society for the Preser- 1938a No Early Improvement Seen in the Container Indus- vation of New England Antiquities, Boston. try. National Glass Budget 54(7):3. DARNAY,ARSEN AND WILLIAM E. FRANKLIN 1938b IO Years Progress in Glass Packaging. Glass Packer 1972 Salvage Markets for Materials in Solid Wastes. U.S. 17(11):668-71. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1938c Glass Containers Continue to Gain in Popularity. DAVIS,PEARCE National Glass Budget 54(27): 16. 1949 The Development of the American Glass Industry. 1938d Glass Container Industry Faces an Uncertain Year. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. National Glass Budget 53(37):3. DEPARTMENTOF STREET CLEANlNG 1940a Annual Report of Glass Container Association by 1896 A Report on the Final Disposition of the Wastes of Ackerman Constructive. National Glass Budget New York. Department of Street Cleaning, New York. 56(4):3. 1940b News and Notes Relative to the No-Deposit Beer DOW, GEORGEFRANCIS Bottle. National Glass Budget 56( 1):1&15. 1927 The Arts and Crajis in New England, 1704-1775. 1942 Recent Developments in Glass Container Litigation. Wayside Press, Topsfield, Mass. National Glass Budget 57(38):3 FARMER,LIZZIE C. 1946 Raise the Bottle Deposit? Nationul Botrlers’ Gazette 1916 A-B-C of Home Saving. Harper and Brothers, New 64(768):6&67. York 80 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 21

GLASSCONTAINER MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMICCO-OPERATION AND DE- 1960 Glass Containers, 1960. Glass Container Manufactur- VELOPMENT ers Institute, New York. 1978 Beverage Containers: Re-Use or Recycling. OECD Publications, Paris. HAGEMAN,E. F. 1912 The Bottle Question. American Bottler 32(1 lh68-69 PETERS,W. A. HAGUE,GEORGE W. 1902 Trade Marks in the Bottling Industry. American 1913 Practical Suggestions. Meyer Brothers Druggist Curbonator and American Bottler 22(25 1):24. 34(5): 135. RILEY,JOHN J. HUSA, WILLIAMJ. I958 A History of rhe American Soji Drink Industry: Botrled 1941 Pharmaceutical Dispensing, 2d ed. Husa Brothers, Carbonated Beverages, 1807-1957. American Bot- Iowa City. tlers of Carbonated Beverages, Washingt0n.D.C. KELSO, WILLIAMM. SCHMEISER,ALAN 1979 Captain Jones's Wormslow. University of Georgia 1968 Have Bottles Will Pop. Michalan Press, Dixon, Cali- Press, Athens. fornia. KURTENACKER,CARL SCOVILLE,WARREN C. 1914 The Desirability of the Plain Bottle. American Bottler 1948 Revolution in Glassmaking: Entrepreneurship and 4(5):58-59. Technological Change in the American Industry, LESLIE,ELIZA 188&1920. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 1840 The House Book: or, A Manual of Domestic Econ omy. Carey and Hart, Philadelphia. SERCHUK,ALAN 1978 Milk Packaging Still in Transition. Modern Packag- MCKEARIN,HELEN AND KENNETHM. WILSON ing 51:3740. 1978 American Bottles and Flasks and Their Ancest?. Crown Publishers, New York. STARRY,ROBERTA W. MEIGH,EDWARD 1968 Bottle Houses. Old Botrle Magazine 1(1 1):2C-23. 1960 The Development of the Automatic Glass Bottle TATUM,C. A. Machine. Glass Technology 1(1):25-50. 1900 Druggists Glassware. National Glass Budget 15(47):8. MUNSEY,CECIL U.S. BUREAUOF THE CENSUS 1970 The Illustrated Guide to Collecting Bottles. Hawthorn 1975 Historical Statistics of the United Stares, Colonial Books, New York. Times to 1970. Bicentennial ed., part 1. Government NICHOLSON,JAMES R. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1916 Deposit Saves Large Sums. American Bottler 36(5):39. WILSON, BILLAND BETTY WILSON 1968 Spirits Bottles of the Old West. Wilson and Wilson, NOEL HUME,IVOR Wolfe City, Texas. I962 Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Vir- ginia, 1957-59. United States National Museum Bul- JANE BUSCH letin, no. 225. Contributions from the Museum of WESTERNRESERVE HISTORICAL SOCIETY History and Technology, paper 18, Washington, D.C. 10825 EASTBOULEVARD 1974 All the Best Rubbish. Harper and Row, New York. CLEVELAND, OHIO 44106